LUIS CABALLERO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion, agreeing that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to order concurrent sentences in another county.
Defendant pleaded no contest based on an agreement for concurrent sentences, but the sentences ultimately ran consecutively. The trial court denied hi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
Luis Caballero appeals the summary denial of his motion made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Defendant pled no contest in Defendant claims he has now discovered that his Orange and Lake County sentences are consecutive. Indeed, attached to the motion is a “waiver of rights and agreement to enter plea” form which states, “Defendant to get same sentence offer in Orange County cases, to run concurrent with these [Lake County] cases.” This document is signed by the local assistant state attorney and a representative of the Statewide Prosecutor’s Office. Addition ally, the transcript of the sentencing hearing clearly confirms that everyone was aware that this agreement was an incentive for the plea. During sentencing, the trial court stated, “It’s my understanding you will be sentenced in the same manner in Orange County.”
The relief sought by appellant in his motion is that the court vacate “the sentence” and order the Department of Corrections to “amend” and to “correct” the sentence to have the sentences run concurrently. The trial eourt denied defendant’s motion, pointing out that defendant was sentenced in Lake County first and that the circuit court in Lake County has no jurisdiction to direct a particular sentence in another county. Appellant has not sought to withdraw his Lake County plea nor has he asserted that he would not have entered the Lake County plea if he had known that the Orange County sentence would be consecutive. The judge states in his order that the proper forum for defendant to “air his grievance” is Orange County.
There is a good deal we do not know about the issue at hand from the record before us, including whether the agreement was, in fact, breached in Orange County, and, if so, how or why. We do agree that the lower eourt was correct in denying the relief requested.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Duer v. State, 733 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…t established any error occurred. At the sentencing hearing there was no discussion. concerning what percentage of time he would have to serve, and Duer does not allege he entered his plea based on any particular expectation. See Caballero v. State, 696 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). As pointed out above, Duer has never sought to withdraw his plea based on a misconception on his part that he would serve a shorter percentage of time than will be required, so this issue has not been preserved. But even if it h…